vocabulary development in norwegian l and l …...this study examined the vocabulary development of...

Vocabulary development in Norwegian L and Llearners in the kindergarten–school transition*

JANNICKE KARLSEN

Department of Teacher Education, Østfold University College

SOLVEIG-ALMA HALAAS LYSTER

Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo

AND

ARNE LERVÅG

Department of Education, University of Oslo

(Received August –Revised June –Accepted January –

First published online March )

ABSTRACT

This study examined the vocabulary development of Norwegian secondlanguage (L) learners with Urdu/Punjabi as their first language (L) attwo time-points from kindergarten to primary school, and compared itto the vocabulary development of monolingual Norwegian children.Using path models, the associations between number of picture booksin the home, maternal education, and previous L and L vocabularyon the development of L vocabulary breadth and depth wereinvestigated. The results indicate that despite the weaker vocabularyskills of the L sample, the growth trajectories of the L learners andthe monolingual comparison group did not differ. For the L

learners, we identified both concurrent and longitudinal predictors ofvocabulary: the number of books in the home and the time ofintroduction of the L predicted concurrent vocabulary. L

vocabulary, number of books in the home, and the time ofintroduction of the L predicted vocabulary growth.

[*] Address for correspondence: Jannicke Karlsen, Department of Teacher Education,Østfold University College. e-mail: [email protected]

J. Child Lang. (), –. © Cambridge University Press This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/./), which permitsunrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided theoriginal work is properly cited.doi:./S

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 20 Jan 2020 at 11:02:02, subject to the Cambridge Core

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1017/S0305000916000106&domain=pdf

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106

https://www.cambridge.org/core

INTRODUCTION

Vocabulary knowledge is important for the development of literacy andacademic achievement for both monolingual (NICHD, ; Storch &Whitehurst, ) and bilingual children (August, Carlo, Dressler &Snow, ; Lervåg & Aukrust, ). Vocabulary development isfacilitated by background factors, such as parental education (e.g.Carneiro, Meghir & Parey, ) and literacy activities in the home (Bus,IJsendoorn & Pellegrini, ). Second language (L) learners face achallenge when learning an L vocabulary because they must learn it inaddition to their first language (L) vocabulary. The distributed timethat L learners in a language minority context spend with each languagealso appears to affect the development of the L vocabulary.Consequently, L learners often have limitations in vocabularyknowledge in both of their languages (Oller, Pearson & Cobo-Lewis,), and gaps between the vocabulary knowledge of monolingual andL learners are often observed (August et al., ; Lervåg & Aukrust,). However, we know less about how different background factorsand L vocabulary affect vocabulary development in L learners than wedo about the vocabulary development of monolingual language learners.Few longitudinal studies address such questions. In the current study,we used path analyses to examine mothers’ educational level and numberof picture books in the home as longitudinal predictors of vocabularydevelopment in monolingual Norwegian language learners and childrenwith Urdu or Punjabi as their L, learning Norwegian as an L. For theL learners we also included L vocabulary, the child’s use ofNorwegian to family and friends, and age of introduction of the L aspredictor variables.

Development of vocabulary in L and L learners

A theoretical distinction exists between vocabulary breadth (form–meaningconnections) and vocabulary depth (the extent of semantic representation)(Ouellette, ; Schmitt, ). Although some studies have failed tofind conceptual differences between breadth and depth of vocabulary inmonolingual and bilingual samples (Vermeer, ), other studies havefound that vocabulary breadth and depth relate to reading in distinct ways(Ouellette, ; Wise, Sevcik, Morris, Lovett & Wolf, ). Moreover,L learners appear to face difficulties with both vocabulary breadth(August et al., ; Oller et al., ; Scheele, Leseman & Mayo, )and vocabulary depth (August et al., ). In a recent review, Schmitt() argues that the relationship between breadth and depth appears tovary because of different conceptualizations and measures of vocabulary, aswell as with word frequency and vocabulary size. Consequently, the

L AND L VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


relationship between vocabulary depth and breadth might differ in L

learners compared to monolingual learners.Vocabulary development in monolingual children exhibits strong

longitudinal continuity (Melby-Lervåg, Lervåg, Lyster, Hagtvet &Hulme, ), meaning that the rank ordering of children’s scores appearsto be largely preserved during development. The stability of vocabularyknowledge is also found in L samples (Verhoeven, ), and makes itdifficult to identify predictors of vocabulary growth. Although a fewstudies have indicated that the growth of L learners’ L vocabulary skillsappears to be faster than the growth of monolingual learners’ vocabularyskills, the L learners do not appear to catch up with their monolingualpeers in the early years of formal education (Simos, Sideridis, Mouzaki,Chatzidaki & Tzevelekou, ). Consequently, identifying factors thatfacilitate language minority children’s L development is a major concern.

The relationship between socioeconomic factors and vocabulary in monolingualand L learners

Compared to other linguistic skills, vocabulary appears to be particularlysensitive to variation in the linguistic environment that children are in(Hoff, ). One environmental factor that has been found to predictvocabulary both concurrently and longitudinally (Beitchman et al., ;Hart & Risley, ; NICHD, ) is socioeconomic status (SES),particularly parental education (see Lawlor, Najman, Batty, O’Callaghan,Williams & Bor, , for the relationship between SES factors and childintelligence). SES factors, such as parents’ education, appear to affectchildren’s language development indirectly through environmental factorssuch as parental behavior: for example the parents’ shaping of thephysical, social, cognitive, and cultural environment (Rindermann &Baumeister, ) and parents’ language use (Hart & Risley, ; Hoff &Naigles, ; Pan, Rowe, Singer & Snow, ), or through early literacyactivities, such as book reading (often indicated by the number of books inthe home; Myrberg & Rosén, ). Huttenlocher () found thatchildren from lower SES families heard less than two-thirds the numberof different words than children from middle SES families. Similarly,Hart and Risley () found that SES was related to the time the parentsspent interacting with their child and to the amount of verbal interaction.Consequently, children from higher SES backgrounds heard moredifferent words and more words in total than children from lower SESbackgrounds. Examining the effect of SES and maternal speech on thevocabulary development of two-year-old children, Hoff () found thatthe observed difference in vocabulary development between samples ofchildren from high and middle SES families was explained by differences

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


in their mothers’ speech, indicating that maternal speech mediated the effectof SES. Re-analyzing data from the study by Hart and Risley (), andcomparing them to the sample from Hoff () using path analyses,Rindermann and Baumeister () found that parental educationalbehavior was more important than parental education level for thelanguage skills of two-, three-, and nine-year-old children. However, thereis also some evidence that maternal education has an independent effect onL vocabulary, separate from the effect of parental educational behaviorssuch as language use (Rojas, Iglesias, Bunta, Goldstein, Goldenberg &Reese, ; Scheele et al., ).

Home literacy activities such as book reading appear to predict vocabularyat different ages (e.g. Patterson, ), and Snow, Burns, and Griffin ()argue that literacy activities are more likely to occur in homes with manychildren’s books and literacy materials than in homes with fewer suchbooks and material. In a meta-analysis, Bus et al. () found that bookreading in the home explained a small but significant part of the variancein children’s language and literacy skills in both concurrent andlongitudinal studies. The sizes of the effect were independent of SES(middle or low).

There is significant variability among studies that have examinedpredictors of academic achievement in L learners, and both SES (Sirin,) and parents’ reading (Goldenberg, Rueda & August, ) appear tobe less predictive of academic success for L than for monolinguallanguage learners, particularly for L learners in a language minoritycontext. However, the small number of studies that examine predictors ofL vocabulary still suggest that SES (Armon-Lotem, Walters & Gagarina,; Golberg, Paradis & Crago, ; Hammer, Komaroff, Rodriguez,Lopez, Scarpino & Goldstein, ; Rojas et al., ) and frequency ofreading (Patterson, ) predict L vocabulary skills. Scheele andcolleagues () found that the direct and indirect effects of SES weredifferently related to vocabulary breadth in their Dutch monolingualsample and both their bilingual samples (Moroccan–Dutch and Turkish–Dutch). SES (maternal education) had a positive and significant effect onDutch language input in the monolingual sample. In the bilingualsamples, there was a direct effect of SES on L language input in theMoroccan–Dutch sample, and an indirect effect on L vocabulary, but noeffect in the Turkish–Dutch sample. Several explanations are given for thisdifference, but the amount and quality of L input (significantly correlatedwith SES) in the Moroccan–Dutch sample seems to offer one importantexplanation. Paradis () found that both language use at home andmother’s level of education had limited association with English L

vocabulary in sequentially bilingual children from various L backgrounds.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


Longitudinal studies investigating predictors of vocabulary growth in L

learners have also suggested that literacy-rich home environments (e.g.educational television; Uchikoshi, ) and SES (e.g. maternal education;Rydland, Grøver & Lawrence, ) are important for L learners’vocabulary development. However, there are few longitudinal studieswithin the area, suggesting that more longitudinal studies of vocabularydevelopment in L learners are needed to increase our understanding ofthe factors that predict development.

L exposure and usage in L vocabulary development

Variance in language exposure and use appears to affect children’s languagedevelopment and vocabulary development in particular (Chondrogianni &Marinis, ). L learners’ exposure and use of the L varies, forexample, based on length of time in the majority society or differences ininput in school, the home, and the community (Paradis, ). Thedelayed onset of acquisition and lack of opportunities to learn the L,which many L learners experience, add to the explanation of why L

learners often have less-developed vocabulary knowledge in the majoritylanguage compared to their monolingual peers (Scheele et al., ).

Several studies have found correlations between the amount of L

language exposure and L development (e.g. Cobo-Lewis, Eilers, Pearson& Umbel, ; Hammer et al., ; Hoff, Core, Place, Rumiche, Señor& Parra, ). Variables like age of L onset (Armon-Lotem et al., )and length of exposure to the L (Chondrogianni & Marinis, ;Paradis, ) are found to influence L acquisition. There are conflictingresults, however, and Chondrogianni and Marinis () found thatchronological age was a more important predictor of L vocabulary thanwas age of exposure, suggesting that cognitive maturity was a greaterfacilitator of L vocabulary acquisition than age of exposure.

The language use in language minority families is dynamic, oftenchanging towards more use of the majority language (de Houwer, ).Results from studies examining various predictors of L proficiencyindicate that both amount of exposure and children’s language use areimportant for L learners’ language development (Bohman, Bedore,Peña, Mendez-Perez & Gillam, ; Hammer et al., ). Bohman andcolleagues found an independent contribution of language use on L

language proficiency, and suggest that language use might force thelearner to process language in a way that only hearing a language doesnot (Bohman et al., ). Similarly, Hammer and colleagues found thatthe amount of children’s language use supported the development ofvocabulary in both languages of the L learners in their sample (),and Paradis () found that amount of language use was more strongly

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


correlated with L vocabulary than was amount of exposure. In a study ofSpanish–English bilinguals in kindergarten, Rojas and colleagues foundthat language exposure and language use loaded on the same factor (Rojaset al., ). In sum, the studies that have examined the effect of L

exposure and L use find that both exposure and use predicts L

development. However, the dynamic characteristic of language use inlanguage minority families suggests that different factors mightcontribute differently to the L development at different ages and indifferent contexts. Thus, including variables of both exposure and usemight help us to better understand L vocabulary development in aminority context.

The contribution of L to L vocabulary

One theory has had a strong impact on the understanding of the relationshipbetween proficiency in L and L, often referred to as TRANSFER, namely theinterdependence hypothesis. The theory argues that both L and L rest ona common underlying proficiency. This underlying proficiency appears torefer to a mutual central processing system from which both languagesoperate (Cummins, ). Consequently, L skills may affect and facilitatethe development of L.

Some studies lend support to the theory of interdependence. Usingprincipal component analyses, Cobo-Lewis and colleagues found that thereappeared to be interdependence between the literacy skills of bilingualSpanish–English children, but that the oral language skills (vocabulary)appeared to be language-specific (Cobo-Lewis et al., ). They arguethat the reason for the difference between oral language and literacy is thatliteracy is in nature metalinguistic (Bialystok, ), thus is easier totransfer across languages. In a recent meta-analysis, Melby-Lervåg andLervåg () found a small meta-correlation between L and L

vocabulary, but there were large variations in the strength of thecorrelations among the studies. It has been argued that children fromlow-SES backgrounds are less likely to possess decontextualized languageskills than are children from high-SES backgrounds (Hart & Risley, ),and that decontextualized language skills are more likely to lead to transfer(Cummins, ). However, Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg () did notfind any differences in transfer between high- and low-SES L learners intheir meta-analysis.

In addition, the majority of research on the relationship between L andL development is conducted in bilingual Spanish–English samples(Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, ), suggesting a need for research onlanguages that are more dissimilar to enhance our understanding of howthe development of L and L are related.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


THE PRESENT STUDY

A number of factors might affect the L development of young children in aminority language context. In the present study we included some of thesefactors, representing both individual differences (L and L languageproficiency) and external (environmental) factors (e.g. maternal educationand number of picture books in the home) to examine how they affectedL vocabulary. We used a longitudinal design to examine the developmentof vocabulary in a sample of L leaners with Urdu/Punjabi as L, learningNorwegian as L, and compared the vocabulary development ofNorwegian in the Urdu/Punjabi sample with the development ofvocabulary in a sample of monolingual Norwegian language learners fromthe last year of kindergarten to the first grade in school. We treatedvocabulary breadth and vocabulary depth separately (Ouellette, ;Schmitt, ). The following hypotheses guided our research:

. L learners will have weaker (breadth and depth) vocabulary knowledgein Norwegian than monolingual learners. The L learners, however,will experience a steeper growth of Norwegian vocabulary skills.

. We expect stability in the development of vocabulary breadth andvocabulary depth from kindergarten to Grade in both the sample ofmonolingual children and the sample of L learners. Because of thestrong link between vocabulary depth and breadth found in previousresearch (e.g. Schmitt, ) we might also find reciprocal relationshipsbetween the development of these related aspects of vocabulary knowledge.

. External factors (number of picture books in the home, maternal education,and, for the L learners, the child’s use of Norwegian and the ageof introduction of Norwegian) will predict Norwegian vocabularyknowledge concurrently and longitudinally. The external factors will beparticularly important in the Urdu/Punjabi sample because we expect alarger variation in these variables for the L learners.

. In the Urdu/Punjabi sample, L vocabulary knowledge will predict thedevelopment of L vocabulary.

METHOD

Participants

A total of children participated in the study at the first point of assessment.Sixty-six children had Urdu or Punjabi as L and were learning Norwegian asL. One hundred and ninety-one children were monolingual with Norwegianas L. The mean age of the L learners was ·months at the time of the firstassessment and · months at the last assessment (SD= · months and ·months, respectively), and the monolingual children’s mean age was ·months at the first assessment and · months at the last assessment

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


(SD= · months and · months, respectively). Some of the children hadmoved to other school districts by the second point of assessment (n= ), and children were assessed in the first grade (/). The monolingualNorwegian sample was % girls and % boys, and the Norwegian Lsample was % girls and % boys. All children attended kindergarten bythe age of five. The language of instruction in Norwegian schools andkindergartens is Norwegian. The monolingual Norwegian sample camefrom slightly more rural areas than the Norwegian L sample. All childrenin the Norwegian L sample except two were born in Norway. Themothers had lived in Norway for a mean of · years (SD= · years)and the fathers for a mean of years (SD= · years). About % of themothers reported working full- or part-time, as did % of the fathers(Karlsen, Lyster & Geva, ). Most Pakistani immigrants in Norwaycome from the Punjab region and speak Punjabi as their L. Punjabi is aspoken language in Pakistan, while Urdu is also a written language.Furthermore, Urdu is the national language of Pakistan and is used as acommon language. Moreover, the two languages are quite similar (Thiesen,), and thus we will treat them as the same language in the analysis.Approximately % of the parents in the sample reported that they use bothUrdu and Norwegian in the home, whereas % use mostly Urdu andapproximately % use Urdu, Norwegian, and Punjabi. Forty-four percentof the parents reported that they tell stories or read to their child inNorwegian daily, and % reported that they tell stories or read daily inUrdu or Punjabi (Karlsen et al., ).

Procedure

The monolingual sample was recruited from a large-scale study focusing onlanguage development (Melby-Lervåg et al., ). All L learners hadknowledge of Norwegian to the extent that they understood the testinstructions in the L. The first assessment was conducted at thebeginning of the children’s last year in kindergarten (the year they reachedage five), and the second assessment took place approximately –

months after the first assessment, – months into the children’s firstschool year. Each assessment took place isolated from peers, lastedbetween and minutes, and was conducted by trained assistants ordoctoral students.

Measures

In kindergarten, the children’s vocabulary was measured and backgroundinformation was assessed using a parent questionnaire. The Norwegian L

Punjabi is a written language in India, but is rarely written in Pakistan (Thiesen, )




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


sample was given the tests of vocabulary breadth in both Norwegian andUrdu or Punjabi. In the first grade, vocabulary was assessed with the samevocabulary measures as in kindergarten. Test procedures were followed forall assessments.

Vocabulary. To assess vocabulary breadth in L and L, Norwegian andUrdu/Punjabi versions of the British Picture Vocabulary Scale II(BPVS-II) were used (Dunn, Dunn, Whetton & Vurley, ). TheBPVS is a receptive vocabulary test in which the child is asked to match aspoken word with one of four pictures. The Norwegian version wasstandardized by Lyster, Horn, and Rygvold (). The process oftranslating the BPVS-II into Urdu and Punjabi started with twoindependent mother-tongue speakers of the languages translating the test.They then discussed the translations with members of a research group,using both the Norwegian and the English version of the test as a sourceof information. Finally, the translated version of the test was given to atranslator, who translated it back to Norwegian (Monsrud, Bjerkan &Thurmann-Moe, ). In order to assess Urdu/Punjabi vocabulary usingthe BPVS-II translations, words were presented in an auditory fashionfrom a computer, in either Urdu or Punjabi. The children were askedwhich language they preferred. The majority chose Urdu, and only a smallnumber chose Punjabi. We found no significant differences between thechildren who preferred to be tested in Urdu and the children whopreferred to be tested in Punjabi. Furthermore, there were no differencesbetween the groups as a result of language use at home (Urdu, Urdu/Norwegian, Urdu/Punjabi/Norwegian).

For the Norwegian L sample, assessment of Urdu/Punjabi vocabularywas always conducted approximately one week after the assessment withthe Norwegian version. The vocabulary test results and the Cronbach’salpha values for the difference between monolingual and L learners forall measures are presented in Table .Vocabulary depth in Norwegian was assessed using the word definition

tasks from the Norwegian version of the Wechsler Preschool and PrimaryScale of Intelligence (WPPSI; Wechsler, ). In this task, the child isasked to define different words, and is rewarded with , , or pointsbased on the quality of the definitions. In addition to measuringknowledge of vocabulary depth, this technique provides a productivelanguage measure. One-way ANOVAs with language use at home (Urdu,Urdu/Norwegian, Urdu/Punjabi/Norwegian) as a between-group factorindicated significant differences between the groups in vocabulary depth inkindergarten (F(,) = ·, p = ·). A Tukey HSD post-hoc testrevealed that children from homes where Urdu was the language mostfrequently used scored significantly better than children from homes

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


TABLE . Means, standard deviations and Cronbach’s alpha for the variables, in addition to effect sizes (Cohen’s d) betweengroups

Kindergarten (five years old) School (six years old)

ML Norwegian L learners ML–Ldifference

ML Norwegian L learners ML–L

differenceMeasures M (SD) α M (SD) Α d M (SD) α M (SD) α d

Voc. breadth N · (·) · · (·) · ·** · (·) · · (·) · ·**Voc. breadth U/P – – · (·) · – – · (·) ·Voc. depth N · (·) · · (·) · ·** · (·) · · (·) · ·**Child’s use of L – – · (·) · – – – – – –

NOTES: ML: monolingual; Voc. breadth N: BPVS II Norwegian; Voc. breadth U/P: BPVS II Urdu or Punjabi; Voc. depth: WPPSI; Child’s useof L: child’s use of Norwegian to family and friends; ** p< ·.

L

AN

DL

VOCABU

LARY

DEVELOPM

EN

T

terms of use, available at https://w

ww

.cambridge.org/core/term

s. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106D

ownloaded from

https://ww

w.cam

bridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 20 Jan 2020 at 11:02:02, subject to the Cambridge Core


https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


where Urdu/Punjabi/Norwegian were used (·± ·, p= ·). Nodifferences were found in Grade .

Background information. Mothers’ education, number of picture books inthe home, the child’s use of Norwegian, and the time of introduction toNorwegian were assessed in kindergarten using a parent questionnaire.The questionnaire for the parents of the Norwegian L sample wasdistributed in both Urdu and Norwegian, and the language choice wasoptional. The educational level reported in the current study isindependent of the country in which the education was conducted. Whilethere may be a high correlation between mothers’ and fathers’ educationallevels, there is still a tendency for mothers’ education to be the mostimportant for language development (Korupp, Ganzeboom & Lippe,), likely because mothers spend more time with their children, at leastat a young age.

The mothers in both groups were given six options to describe theirhighest level of education: no education, primary school, upper secondaryschool / vocational, upper secondary school / academic, higher education /less than four years, higher education / four years or more, or othereducation. The percentage of mothers answering this question was % inthe Norwegian L sample and % in the Norwegian monolingual sample.The number of picture books in the home was also assessed through the

parent questionnaire. The number of books in the home is typically partof a home–language–literacy composite, but it has also been found topredict variation in children’s academic achievement alone (Olofsson &Niedersøe, ). This variable does not provide information about theliteracy activities in the home directly, but many studies use it to representthe value of literacy activities held by the parents (Bus et al., ). Theparents were given four options for the quantity of picture books: less thantwo, three to five, six to ten, eleven to fifty, or more than fifty. We did notask for the language of the books. Eighty-eight percent of the NorwegianL sample and % of the Norwegian monolingual sample answered thequestion about the number of picture books in the home.

The child’s use of Norwegian was assessed by asking the parents if thechild most often used Norwegian (yes or no) when communicating withparents, siblings, other family members, and friends. The child got onepoint for each situation in which he/she used Norwegian more, creating avariable ranging from to .

The time of introduction of the L was assessed by asking about thechild’s age when being introduced to Norwegian. The parents were giventhe following options: years, months, year, · years, and so on untilthe age of , creating an -point scale.

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


RESULTS

The means, standard deviations, and reliabilities for all variables at bothtime-points are shown in Table , along with the effect sizes of thedifferences between the two groups. All analyses are based on raw scores.As predicted in part one of our first hypothesis, differences between themonolingual and L learners were large and significant for bothvocabulary tests at both test points.

Two repeated-measure analyses of variance (ANOVAs) with time as awithin-groups factor and group as a between-groups factor were conductedto investigate whether the children’s vocabulary skills improved over time,and to examine part two of our first hypothesis: whether the improvementvaried between groups. The results indicated that the children’s vocabularyskills improved over time, with the main effect of time being significant forboth the test of vocabulary breadth in Norwegian (BPVS-II) (F(,) =·, p< ·, partη

= ·), and the test of vocabulary depth (WPPSI)(F(,) = ·, p< ·, partη

= ·). However, the interaction betweentime and groups was not significant for the test of vocabulary breadth(BPVS-II) (F(,) = ·, p= ·, partη

= ·) or for the test ofvocabulary depth (WPPSI) (F(,) = ·, p= ·, partη

= ·), whichindicates that there were no differences between the groups with respect tohow fast their vocabulary skills improved during the course of the study.

Tables and present the response frequencies for the categories ofpicture books in the home and mothers’ educational level reports,respectively. Two Mann–Whitney U tests confirmed that monolinguallearners had more picture books in the home than L learners (U = ·,p < ·), and that the mothers of the monolingual language learners hadhigher educational levels than those of L learners (U = ·, p< ·).There was a ceiling effect on the child’s use of L, indicating that themajority of the L learners primarily used Norwegian at home. The timeof introduction of the L is provided in Figure and ranged from birth toage four, with eight children getting introduced to Norwegian at birth andnine children getting introduced to Norwegian at the age of four, whichimplies that some of the L learners were simultaneous bilinguals.

Estimated correlations among all variables for monolingual (upperdiagonal) and L (lower diagonal) learners are provided in Table . Asexpected, the vocabulary measures correlate with each other bothconcurrently and longitudinally in both groups. In addition, Time

vocabulary breadth in Urdu is moderately correlated with vocabularybreadth in Norwegian at Time . Unexpectedly, we did not findsignificant correlations between mothers’ education and the number ofpicture books in the home in the Urdu/Punjabi sample. A smallcorrelation was observed in the monolingual sample, implying that there




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


was a tendency in the monolingual sample for more picture books to bepresent in households in which the mother had a higher level of education.

Prediction of the development of vocabulary skills

We used path models in order to examine a theoretical model of howdifferent background factors predict the development of vocabulary inmonolinguals and L learners. The advantages of this analytical approachinclude the possibility of including both observed and latent (error-free)variables. It also makes it possible for variables to act as both dependentand independent, consequently allowing for more complex relationshipsthan in, for example, a strict regression analytical approach. All furtheranalyses (including missing values) were handled with full informationrobust maximum likelihood estimation (robust FIML) with Mplus ·(Muthén & Muthén, –). To avoid attenuated associationsbetween the variables as a function of measurement errors, the variableswere reliability corrected by prescribing the measurement error based onthe alpha score in the two samples. Correcting for measurement errors inthis way can prevent and correct the negative consequences thatmeasurement error can cause in path and regression analysis (see Cole &Preacher, ).

Two saturated path models (one for each group) were created to examineour second, third, and fourth hypotheses: whether earlier vocabulary skills(breadth and depth), the number of picture books in the home, themothers’ educational level, the child’s use of Norwegian (L), and thetime of introduction of Norwegian were able to predict the developmentof later vocabulary skills (breadth and depth). In these models, vocabularyskills at six years of age were regressed on vocabulary skills at five years ofage in addition to the number of picture books in the home and themothers’ educational level. In addition, vocabulary at five years of age wasregressed on the number of picture books in the home and the mothers’educational level. For the L learners, vocabulary breadth in Urdu/Punjabi

TABLE . Frequencies for the picture book categories

Number of picture books (%)

ML Norwegian L learners

to · to · · to · ·More than · ·

NOTE: ML: monolingual.

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


at five years of age, in addition to the child’s use of Norwegian and the timeof introduction of Norwegian, were added as predictors of later vocabularyskills in Norwegian. Vocabulary breadth in Urdu/Punjabi was alsoregressed on the number of picture books in the home, the mothers’educational level, the child’s use of Norwegian, and the time ofintroduction of Norwegian. These models are provided in Figures and

for monolingual and L learners, respectively. For simplicity, only thesignificant paths are drawn in the figures.

In the monolingual model, there appeared to be a reciprocal relationshipbetween the development of vocabulary breadth and vocabulary depth.Vocabulary breadth at the age of five explained vocabulary depth at theage of six, and vocabulary depth at the age of five explained vocabularybreadth at the age of six – both beyond autoregressors (earlier measures ofthe same variable). In addition, the number of picture books in the homewas concurrently associated with vocabulary breadth.

TABLE . Frequencies for the mothers’ education categories

Mothers’ education (%)

ML Norwegian L learners

No education ·Other education ·Primary school · ·Upper secondary school / vocational · ·Upper secondary school / academic · ·Higher education / less than four years ·Higher education / four years or more ·

NOTE: ML: monolingual.

Fig. . Age of introduction of Norwegian for the L learners.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


The results of the L model differed from those of the monolingual modelin some interesting aspects. The development of vocabulary depth inNorwegian appeared to be explained by earlier vocabulary breadth inNorwegian, whereas earlier vocabulary depth in Norwegian did notexplain the development of vocabulary breadth in Norwegian. Thus, oursecond hypothesis was fully confirmed in the monolingual sample, butonly partly confirmed in our L sample. Further, in line with our fourthhypothesis, vocabulary breadth in Urdu/Punjabi at five years of ageexplained additional variance in vocabulary breadth in Norwegian at theage of six, beyond all other variables. Our third hypothesis was partlyconfirmed as the time of introduction to the L predicted both vocabularybreadth and depth concurrently, and vocabulary breadth longitudinally.Furthermore, the presence of a large number of picture books in the homewas related to vocabulary breadth at age five and vocabulary depth at agesix. Mothers’ educational level and the child’s use of Norwegian were notassociated with a unique influence on any of the vocabulary measures. Inaddition, there were correlations between the parts of the two vocabularymeasures that were not explained by the other variables at both timepoints (residual correlations).

TABLE . Estimated correlations between all variables for ML(upper diagonal) and L (lower diagonal) learners

. Voc. breadthN

· ·** ·** ·** · ·* − −

. Voc. depthN

·** · ·** ·** · · − −

. Voc. breadthN

·** ·** · ·** · · − −

. Voc. depthN

·** ·** ·** · · · − −

. M education · · · · · ·* − −. N books ·** · · ·** · · − −. Voc. breadthU/P

· · ·** · · −· · −

. Child’s useof L

· ·** · ·** · · −· ·

. L onset ·** ·** ·** ·** · · −· ·**

NOTES: ML: monolingual; Voc. breadth N : BPVS-II Norwegian in kindergarten; Voc.depth N : WPPSI Norwegian in kindergarten; Voc. breadth N : BPVS-II Norwegian inthe first grade; Voc. depth N : WPPSI Norwegian in the first grade; M education:mothers’ educational level; N books: number of picture books at home; Voc. BreadthU/P : BPVS-II Urdu or Punjabi in kindergarten; Child’s use of L: the child’s use ofNorwegian with family and friends; L onset: the time of introduction of the L; * p< ·;** p< ·.

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


DISCUSSION

The current study revealed a number of interesting findings regardingvocabulary development in monolingual and L learners during thetransition period from kindergarten to primary school. The L learnersclearly had weaker skills in L vocabulary compared to the monolingualcomparison group, but their growth rates did not differ. Earlier vocabularyskills predicted later vocabulary skills, and a reciprocal relationship wasobserved between vocabulary depth and vocabulary breadth in themonolingual sample. In the L sample, earlier vocabulary breadth inNorwegian predicted the development of vocabulary breadth and depth,and earlier vocabulary depth in Norwegian predicted the development ofvocabulary depth, but not vocabulary breadth. Interestingly, vocabularybreadth in Urdu/Punjabi in kindergarten predicted the development of L

vocabulary breadth among the L learners. Furthermore, the number ofpicture books in the home predicted vocabulary breadth concurrently inboth samples, and in the L sample it also predicted the longitudinaldevelopment of vocabulary depth. In the L sample, the time ofintroduction of the L predicted vocabulary breadth and depthconcurrently, in addition to the longitudinal development of vocabularybreadth. Finally, mothers’ educational level was unrelated to vocabulary inboth samples, and in the L sample the child’s use of Norwegian wasunrelated to the language variables.

Fig. . Path model for the development of vocabulary breadth and depth in monolinguallanguage learners. In this model, rectangles are observed variables (not possible to correctfor measurement error); ellipses are variables corrected for measurement errors.One-headed arrows from a variable to another are regressions, and one-headed arrows froma number to a dependent variable are residuals. Curved two-headed arrows betweenvariables are correlations, and curved two-headed arrows between residuals can beinterpreted as partial correlations between the variables controlling for the dependentvariables. All coefficients are standardized.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


Vocabulary knowledge in L and L learners

Our finding that the L learners had weaker vocabulary than the comparisongroup corresponds with previous research (e.g. Lervåg & Aukrust, ;Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, ; Oller et al., ; Scheele et al., ).The L learners scored lower on measures of both vocabulary breadth anddepth in kindergarten as well as in first grade, which is consistent with theresults of August and colleagues (). This indicates that the L

learners might have fewer phonological representations of words and fewersemantic associations to the words in their L lexicon (breadth and depth;Ouellette, ), which, in the present study, is partly explained by theage of introduction to Norwegian and the number of picture books in thehome.

L learners’ scores on the L tasks were even lower than those on the L

tasks, indicating that the L learners were more proficient in Norwegian than

Fig. . Path model for the development of vocabulary breadth and depth in L learners.In this model, rectangles are observed variables (not possible to correct for measurementerror); ellipses are variables corrected for measurement errors. One-headed arrows from avariable to another are regressions, and one-headed arrows from a number to a dependentvariable are residuals. Curved two-headed arrows between variables are correlations, andcurved two-headed arrows between residuals can be interpreted as partial correlationsbetween the variables controlling for the dependent variables. All coefficients arestandardized.

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


in their L. This finding supports the argument made by Oller andcolleagues () that the distributed time of L learners with eachlanguage has consequences for both L and L proficiency. Incorrespondence with the dynamic changes of the language use of languageminority families (de Houver, ), most parents report that their childmainly used the majority language when communicating with friends andfamily. It could also be argued that the low scores on the L task mightbe the result of L attrition; that is, loss of L in the “process ofbecoming linguistically assimilated” in the L society (Wong-Fillmore,, p. ).

In contrast to what we expected and to what some previous studies havefound (e.g. Simos et al., ), growth in L learners’ vocabulary was notsignificantly steeper than that of L learners’ vocabulary. A consequenceof parallel developmental trajectories may be that the size of the gap inkindergarten vocabulary will persist. However, the similar growthtrajectories of monolingual and L learners’ vocabulary, in combinationwith the low vocabulary scores among the L learners, are quiteunsettling. Although previous research has shown that L learners seldomcatch up with their monolingual peers, a steeper developmental path iscrucial for minimizing the gap and equipping the L learners withlanguage skills that are sufficiently good to succeed academically.

Predicting vocabulary development

The path analyses indicated a reciprocal relationship beyond autoregressiveeffects between vocabulary breadth and depth in the monolingual samplefrom age five to six. The results imply that if a child’s vocabulary is broadit is likely to positively affect the depth of the vocabulary as well.Similarly, if the child has a well-developed depth knowledge of words, itmay be easier to understand new words; thus, this knowledge may affectthe number of words in the child’s vocabulary (breadth). In the sample ofL learners, we only observed a cross-effect from vocabulary breadth inkindergarten to vocabulary depth in the first grade. Previous studies havenot examined the relationship between vocabulary breadth and depthlongitudinally in monolingual and L samples. The longitudinalrelationship between these aspects of vocabulary knowledge indicate thatproficiency in expressing the meaning of words (depth) is based onknowledge of other words (breadth; Vermeer, ). However, otherdimensions of vocabulary knowledge reflected in the instruments of thecurrent study might shed additional light on the results (see also Wiseet al., ), namely that of receptive versus productive proficiency (theBPVS-II and the word definition task, respectively). It appears thatreceptive learning is easier than productive learning and use (Nation,




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


). Consequently, receptive skills might more easily affect thedevelopment of productive skills than vice versa. In samples ofmonolingual and French–English bilingual children, Yan and Nicoladis() found that bilingual children had close to monolingual scores onmeasures of L receptive vocabulary, but lower scores on measures oflanguage production, indicating that L learners’ difficulties might belimited to productive skills. Contrasting with the results of Yan andNicoladis, we found significant differences between the receptive andproductive measures of the monolingual and L learners, indicating thatthese L learners have trouble with both comprehension and production.However, both measures used by Yan and Nicoladis were measures ofvocabulary breadth, and Ouellette () included both receptive andproductive measures in her study of vocabulary breadth and depth. Thisillustrates the lack of consensus on how to conceptualize various aspects ofvocabulary knowledge (see Schmitt, ). The current study was notdesigned to examine the relationship between the developments of theserelated aspects of vocabulary. To further untangle the relationship betweenthe dimensions of vocabulary knowledge, future research should usevarious conceptualizations and investigate the relationships between themlongitudinally.

Another interesting finding is the correlation between the residuals ofvocabulary breadth and depth in the L sample that indicates that thevariables have features that are not accounted for by the independentvariables, including the autoregressors. Such features might be related to,for example, general cognitive skills (see ‘The relationship between L andL’ below).

The L learners appeared to come from lower SES backgrounds withsignificantly fewer picture books and significantly less educated mothers(Scheele et al., ). However, the L sample did have more heterogeneity(see Table ), which might have affected the results: the number of picturebooks in the home predicted vocabulary breadth concurrently in bothsamples and, in the L sample, it also predicted the development of firstgrade vocabulary depth directly. Bus et al. () found a stronger effect ofbook reading on young children’s vocabulary compared to older children,which may indicate that children with weaker language skills (either becauseof age or L learning) will be more influenced by such language exposure.Furthermore, it is likely that number of picture books indicates the wayparents value and engage in language and literacy activities (Myrberg &Rosén, ).

In line with the result by Paradis (), who found a limited associationbetween mothers’ educational level and L learners’ vocabulary, we did notobserve a relationship between mothers’ education and vocabularydevelopment in either the monolingual or the L sample (see also Scheele

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


et al., ). These results contrast with the results of most previous studieson both concurrent vocabulary skills (Golberg et al., ; Myrberg &Rosén, ; Scheele et al., ) and vocabulary growth (Rydland et al.,). The results are also in contrast with larger studies of therelationship between SES and child development (Beitchman et al., ;Lawlor et al., ). Our results indicate that independent of SES level,literacy activities at home (operationalized as number of picture books inthe home) appeared to be of greater importance than mothers’ educationallevel for the development of vocabulary in Norwegian monolingual andL learners in particular (see also Rindermann & Baumeister, ; Sirin,). Finally, we found no differences between the groups in therelationship between vocabulary and mothers’ educational level. A possibleexplanation for this is the egalitarian Norwegian society, with smallerdifferences between high and low SES than in many other societies.

In contrast with some previous research (Bohman et al., ; Hammeret al., ; Paradis, ), the child’s use of the L, Norwegian, did notpredict vocabulary. However, the variable had a ceiling effect, indicatingthat most children primarily used Norwegian. Thus the lack of variationin this variable could be the cause of its lack of effect on vocabularydevelopment in Norwegian. In addition, the results from the studies byBohman et al. () and Paradis () indicate that language use mightbe more important for morphosyntactic development than for semanticdevelopment. Previous studies have also found effects of use of the L inthe home (e.g. Bohman et al., ; Golberg et al., ), and it seems asthough the impact of use of L in the home is dependent on the L skillsof the speakers (Paradis, ). However, neither the predictive value oflanguage use by family and friends at home (exposure) nor parents’ L

proficiency was examined in the current study.The time of introduction of Norwegian predicted vocabulary

concurrently, as found in previous studies (Armon-Lotem et al., ;Hammer et al., ; Hoff et al., ). What is of particular interest,however, is that in addition to the concurrent relationship between time ofintroduction of Norwegian and both vocabulary breadth and depth, thetime of introduction predicted the development of vocabulary breadthboth directly and indirectly (indirect effect = ·, p = ·) through theprevious measure of vocabulary breadth. This implies that the time ofintroduction of the L was of great importance for the development ofvocabulary in this sample of L learners. Some previous studies havefound age to be a stronger predictor than age of L introduction(Chondrogianni & Marinis, ). In the current study the age range ofthe children was quite narrow, thus age differences were not likely to affectthe results.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


In sum, number of picture books predicted the development of vocabularydepth, while the time of introduction of Norwegian predicted thedevelopment of vocabulary breadth. This supports previous researcharguing that amount and quality of language exposure affects vocabularydevelopment (Armon-Lotem et al., ; Hart & Risley, ; Hoff, ,; Hoff et al., , Hoff & Naigles, ; Rindermann & Baumeister,).

The relationship between L and L

Consistent with the interdependence hypothesis (Cummins, ), as well aswith the results of the meta-analysis of Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg (), wefound an effect of L vocabulary on L vocabulary growth. This suggeststhat L proficiency supports the development of L. The results are incontradiction to the results of Cobo-Lewis and colleagues, however, whofound that oral language skills were language-specific (Cobo-Lewis et al.,). The correlation between the residuals of the L and L vocabularybreadth measures found in the path model might accord with theinterdependence hypothesis: the correlation might be caused by a thirdvariable, such as underlying cognitive abilities (see Simos et al., ).This view is in line with the study by Paradis (), who found thatgeneral cognitive ability (memory and analytical skills) were strongpredictors of L vocabulary. Furthermore, studies suggesting thatcognitive maturity (age of introduction to the L) is related to L

vocabulary scores seem to support this view (Chondrogianni & Marinis,). Golberg and colleagues, however, found that while cognitivematurity seemed to facilitate vocabulary growth, non-verbal ability (IQ)only had limited influence on vocabulary (Golberg et al., ). It shouldbe noted, though, that Golberg and colleagues transformed the ratings ofIQ into a dichotomous variable. A continuous variable taking the totalvariation of the scores into account would provide a more nuanced versionof the non-verbal ability of the children and probably increase the chanceof revealing a relationship, and should be considered in future research.

Limitations and conclusions

A limitation that tempers the interpretations that can be drawn from thisstudy is the relatively small size of the L sample compared to the size ofthe path model. Small sample sizes might lead to instability when theestimated model becomes large. Still, no instability was found when wetried out different estimators (robust versus ordinary maximum likelihood)or different ways of handling missing data (multiple imputations versusfull information maximum likelihood). Another problem with therelatively small L sample is relatively wide confidence intervals around

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


the parameter estimates. This increases the risk of Type errors in the L

model. In addition, only one type of literacy material is taken intoconsideration (picture books). However, few longitudinal studies includeas many background factors as the previous study. Still, future studiesshould consider including factors such as general cognitive ability, andexternal factors such as time spent in kindergarten, use of L in the home,and parents’ L proficiency to better understand the relationship betweenL and L vocabulary development. Furthermore, the relationshipsbetween different aspects of vocabulary proficiency should be assessed inboth languages of L learners. Another limitation of the present study isthe translations of the vocabulary tests, which did not incorporate thelanguage-specific frequency of lexical items.

In the present study, we found that L learners have weaker vocabularyskills than monolingual language learners, and that the growth rates fromkindergarten to the first grade do not differ between the groups. Earliervocabulary predicted later vocabulary in both groups, and, for the Llearners, number of picture books in the home, the age of introduction ofthe L, and L proficiency also appeared to facilitate L vocabulary growth.Our findings underline the importance of the external factors and suggestthat interventions aimed at improving vocabulary skills for L learners mayhave an effect. The interventions should focus on both vocabulary breathand vocabulary depth, but given the fact that vocabulary breath predictedvocabulary depth, a specific focus on vocabulary breath might be importantfor L learners. One possible implication of the findings is that the parentsof L learners should be encouraged to let their children attendkindergarten and be introduced to the L at an earlier age than was thereality for a large group of the L learners included in the present study.However, we did not examine the effect of time spent in kindergarten (seeKarlsen et al., ). In addition, our finding of an effect of L on Lshould not be overlooked, even though this may be explained by individualcognitive factors. Furthermore, because we assume that the number ofpicture books mirrors literacy activities in the home, information about thesignificance of varied and frequent book reading experiences should beprovided to parents.

REFERENCES

Armon-Lotem, S., Walters, J. & Gagarina, N. (). The impact of internal and externalfactors on linguistic performance in the home language and in L among Russian–Hebrew and Russian–German preschool children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism ,–.

August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C. & Snow, C. (). The critical role of vocabularydevelopment for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice

(), –.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


Beitchman, J. H., Jiang, H., Koyama, E., Johnson, C. J., Escobar, M., Atkinson, L. & Vida,R. (). Models and determinants of vocabulary growth from kindergarten to adulthood.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (), –.

Bialystok, E. (). Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language proficiency. InE. Bialystok (ed.), Language processing in bilingual children (pp. –). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Bohman, T., Bedore, L., Peña, E., Mendez-Perez, A. & Gillam, R. (). What you hear andwhat you say: language performance in Spanish–English bilinguals. International Journal ofBilingual Education and Bilingualism , –.

Bus, A. G., IJsendoorn, M. H. v. & Pellegrini, A. D. (). Joint book reading makes forsuccess in learning to read: a meta-analyses on intergenerational transmission of literacy.Review of Educational Research (), –.

Carneiro, P., Meghir, C. & Parey, M. (). Maternal education, home environment, andthe development of children and adolescents. Journal of the European Economic Association(S), –.

Chondrogianni, V. &Marinis, T. (). Differential effects of internal and external factors onthe development of vocabulary, tense morphology and morpho-syntax in successivebilingual children. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism , –.

Cobo-Lewis, A. E., Eilers, R., Pearson, B. Z. & Umbel, V.-C. (). Interdependence ofSpanish and English knowledge in language and literacy among bilingual children. In D.K. Oller & R. E. Eilers (eds), Language and literacy in bilingual children (pp. –).Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cole, A. & Preacher, K. J. (). Manifest variable path analysis: potentially serious andmisleading consequences due to uncorrected measurement error. Psychological Methods, –.

Cummins, J. (). Interdependence of first and second language proficiency in bilingualchildren. In B. Ellen (ed.), Language processing in bilingual children, –. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

de Houver, A. (). Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use. AppliedPsycholinguistics, , –.

Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., Whetton, C. & Vurley, J. (). The British Picture VocabularyScale, nd ed. London: nferNelson.

Golberg, H., Paradis, J. & Crago, M. (). Lexical acquisition over time in minorityfirst language children learning English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, –.

Goldenberg, C., Rueda, R. S. & August, D. (). Synthesis: sociocultural context andliteracy development. In D. August & T. Shanahan (eds), Developing literacy insecond-language learners (pp. –). London: Erlbaum.

Hammer, C. S., Komaroff, E., Rodriguez, B., Lopez, L., Scarpino, S. & Goldstein, B. G.(). Predicting Spanish–English bilingual children’s language abilities. Journal ofSpeech, Language, and Hearing Research , –.

Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of youngAmerican children. Baltimore, MD: P. H. Brookes.

Hoff, E. (). The specificity of environmental influence: socioeconomic status affects earlyvocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Development , –.

Hoff, E. (). How social contexts support and shape language development. DevelopmentalReview , –.

Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M. & Parra, M. (). Dual languageexposure and early bilingual development. Journal of Child Language , –.

Hoff, E. & Naigles, L. (). How children use input to acquire a lexicon. Child Development(), –.

Huttenlocher, J. (). Language input and language growth. Preventive Medicine , –.Karlsen, J., Geva, E. & Lyster, S-A. (). Cognitive, linguistic, and contextual factors inNorwegian second language learners’ narrative production. Applied Psycholinguistics.First view.

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


Korupp, S. E., Ganzeboom, H. B. G. & Lippe, T. v. d. (). Do mothers matter? Acomparison of models of the influence of mothers’ and fathers’ educational andoccupational status on children’s educational attainment. Quality and Quantity , –.

Lawlor, D. A., Najman, J. M., Batty, G. D., O’Callaghan, M. J., Williams, G. M. & Bor, W.(). Early life predictors of childhood intelligence: findings from the Mater-Universitystudy of pregnancy and its outcomes. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology , –.

Lervåg, A. & Aukrust, V. G. (). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of thedifference in reading comprehension growth between first and second language learners.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (), –.

Lyster, S.-A. H., Horn, E. & Rygvold, A.-L. (). Ordforråd og ordforrådsutvikling hosnorske barn og unge: resultater fra en utprøving av British Picture Vocabulary Scale II[Vocabulary and vocabulary development in Norwegian children and youth: results fromthe testing of BPVS-II]. Spesialpedagogikk , –.

Melby-Lervåg, M. & Lervåg, A. (). Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding,phonological awareness and reading comprehension: a meta-analysis of the correlationevidence. Journal of Research in Reading (), –.

Melby-Lervåg, M. & Lervåg, A. (). Reading comprehension and its underlyingcomponents in second language learners: a meta-analysis of studies comparing first andsecond language learners. Psychological Bulletin , –.

Melby-Lervåg, M., Lervåg, A., Lyster, S. A.-H., Hagtvet, B. & Hulme, C. ().Nonword-repetition ability does not appear to be a causal influence on children’svocabulary development. Psychological Science (), –.

Monsrud, M. B., Bjerkan, K. & Thurmann-Moe, A.-C. (). Minoritetsspråklige barnsordforråd og ordforrådsutvikling [Vocabulary and vocabulary development in languageminority children]. Spesialpedagogikk (), –.

Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (–). Mplus user’s guide, th ed. Los Angeles, CA:Muthén & Muthén.

Myrberg, E. & Rosén, M. (). A path model with mediating factors of parents’ educationon students’ reading achievement in seven countries. Educational Research and Evaluation:An International Journal on Theory and Practice (), –.

Nation, I. S. P. (). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: CambridgeApplied Linguistics.

NICHD, E. C. C. R. N. (). Pathways to reading: the role of oral language in thetransition to reading. Developmental Psychology (), –.

Oller, D. K., Pearson, B. Z. & Cobo-Lewis, A. B. (). Profile effects in early bilinguallanguage and literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics (), –.

Olofsson, Å. & Niedersøe, J. (). Early language development and kindergartenphonological awareness as predictors of reading problems: from to years of age.Journal of Learning Disabilities (), –.

Ouellette, G. P. (). What’s meaning got to do with it: the role of vocabulary in wordreading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology (), –.

Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Singer, J. D. & Snow, C. E. (). Maternal correlates of growthin toddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development (),–.

Paradis, J. (). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition:comparing child-internal and child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, –.

Patterson, J. L. (). Relationships of expressive vocabulary to frequency of reading andtelevision experience among bilingual toddlers. Applied Psycholinguistics , –.

Rindermann, H. & Baumeister, A. E. E. (). Parent’s SES vs. parental behaviour andchildren’s development: a reanalysis of the Hart and Risley study. Learning andIndividual Differences , –.

Rojas, R., Iglesias, A., Bunta, F., Goldstein, B., Goldenberg, C. & Reese, L. ().Interlocutor differential effects on the expressive language skills of Spanish-speakingEnglish learners. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (), –.




https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


Rydland, V., Grøver, V. & Lawrence, J. (). The second-language vocabulary trajectoriesof Turkish immigrant children in Norway from ages five to ten: the role of preschool talkexposure, maternal education, and co-ethnic concentration in the neighborhood. Journal ofChild Language , –.

Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. P. M. & Mayo, A. Y. (). The home language environment ofmonolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholinguistics, –.

Schmitt, N. (). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: what research shows. LanguageLearning (), –.

Simos, P. G., Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A., Chatzidaki, A. & Tzevelekou, M. ().Vocabulary growth in second language among immigrant school-aged children in Greece.Applied Psycholinguistics (), –.

Sirin, S. R. (). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic reviewof research. Review of Educational Research (), –.

Snow, C., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Storch, S. A. & Whitehurst, G. J. (). Oral language and code-related precursors toreading: evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology (),–.

Thiesen, F. (). Om språkforholdende i Pakistan II – Pakistans regionale-og lokalspråk[The language situation in Pakistan – the regional and local languages]. Språknytt .Online: <http://www.sprakrad.no/Toppmeny/Publikasjoner/Spraaknytt/Arkivet//Spraaknytt___/Pakistan/>.

Uchikoshi, Y. (). English vocabulary development in bilingual kindergarteners: What arethe best predictors? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , –.

Verhoeven, L. T. (). Transfer in bilingual development: the linguistic interdependencehypothesis revisited. Language Learning (), –.

Vermeer, A. (). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L/L acquisition andfrequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics (), –.

Wechsler, D. (). WPPSI-R: Wechsler’s preschool and primary scale of intelligence. Manualrevised [Swedish version by Eva Tidemann, ]. Stockholm: Harcourt Assessment.

Wise, J. C., Sevcik, R. A., Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W. & Wolf, M. (). The relationshipamong receptive and expressive vocabulary, listening comprehension, pre-reading skills,word identification skills, and reading comprehension by children with readingdisabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (), –.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (). When learning a second language means losing the first. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly , –.

Yan, S. & Nicoladis, E. () Finding le mot juste: differences between bilingual andmonolingual children’s lexical access in comprehension and production. Bilingualism:Language and Cognition (), –.

KARLSEN ET AL .



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000106


vocabulary development in norwegian l and l …...this study examined the vocabulary development of...

Documents